408 INDIAN CASTE. of contemporary society. Impartially judged by either standard, tne authority of the Code will be found materially shaken. Its theories of origin are as devoid of Tedic confirmation as its pictures of existent society are irreconcilable with the testimony of all independent literature, whatever the age in which it was produced. If such a clearly defined fourfold division ever existed, how happens it tliat one-half of the division remains in full force to the present day while the other moiety has sunk into absolute oblivion? The Brahmanical order is still a living entity, and the Kshatriya is adequately represented in modern speech by the word Thakur, or Bajpot, while the Vaisya and Siidra have so completely disappeared—both In name and fact—that an unlettered Hindu will neither understand the words when lie hears them, nor recognize the classes implied when their meaning is explained to him. And not only is this the case in the present day, but it appears to have been so all along. In the great epic poems, in the dramas, and the whole range of miscellaneous literature, the sacerdotal and military classes are every- where recognized, and mention of them crops up involuntarily in every fami- liar narrative. But with Yaisya and Siidra it is far different. These words (I speak under correction) never occur as caste names, except with deliberate reference to the Manava Code* They might be expunged both from the Rama- yana and the Mahabbarat without impairing the integrity of either composi- tion. Only a few moral discourses, which are unquestionably late Brahmani- cal interpolations, and one entire episodiacal narrative, would have to be sacri- ficed ; the poem in all essentials would be left intact. But should we proceed In the same way to strike out the Brahman and the Kshatriya, the whole framework of the poem would Immediately collapse. There is abundant mention of Dhivaras and Napitas, Sutradharas and Kumbhakaras, Mahajanas an-l Banlje>; but no comprehension of them all under two heads in the same familiar way that all chieftains are Kshatriyas, and all priests and litterateurs, Brahmans. It is also noteworthy that Manu, in Ms 12th book, where he classifies gods ani men according to their quality (guna), omits the Vaisya altogether ; and, again, In the Xdi Parvan of the Itahabharat (v. 3139) we read__ Bralsma-Kshatiadaya® tasmld Manor jitas tu manavah, Tata' bhsvad, Maharaja, Brahma Kakattrem sang&tain.* From which it would seem that the writer recognized a definite connection between the Brahman and the Kshatriya, while all the rest of mankind were * * Brfemam, Kslmteiy* *nd the rest of mankind ipnang from this Maati. From him, Sire ewe tb0 Briinasn conjoined with the Kibttiijft."